Let me address this first, should anyone skim my original post and believe I must be an idiot because they then see:

Quote:

Originally Posted by plantbrain

Plant cells and animal cells are extremely different on several major factors.
This is a Biology question on many exams: "What ways are plant and animal cells different? List 5 key differences"

Equating them is a huge stretch without support.

I never even remotely suggested this. What I said in a nutshell is:

1) Busan 77 affects algae by causing their cells to absorb water until they burst.
2) It affects animal gills by disrupting O2 exchange in the cells.

Both of which are well documented, no stretches or assumptions on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plantbrain

Algaefix is not suitable for GW from what I've seen and heard.
Hair algae and that's about all.

Then you've had atypical results. It only takes a quick Google search to easily find dozens, if not hundreds of people who've had great results with AlgaeFix on green water.

Rapid fish death, with symptoms of respiratory distress, is also an atypical result. Still, it does happen, regardless of whether you personally have witnessed it or not.

Now while I didn't make the particular "huge stretch" you previously claimed, I admit I have made a stretch in presuming to know the reason for these rapid fish deaths. I have only tenuous documentation in my favor, and a few experiments.

If I'm wrong, then nothing whatsoever is lost by splitting AlgaeFix into smaller, more frequent doses. If I'm right, and people take my advice, it may prevent a few needless deaths; which is a definite gain.

Yet I've waited two years to write up this information. Between my own uncertainty, and those who seem to feel the need to discredit any new idea, I felt it likely that no one would end up trying it. Making both the initial write-up, and subsequently addressing misleading statements like the first I've quoted from you, an utter waste of effort.

I sincerely hope this will not be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plantbrain

The EPA's Environment toxicity report on aquatic organism...

I've looked up many toxicity reports on my own, looking to find evidence that either supports or refutes my own hypothesis. And I found them insufficient, because they all lack a key piece of information.

They do tell us that a certain amount of Busan 77, constant over a period of a few days (or weeks), was lethal to 50% of the test species.

They don't tell us when within that test period the fish died.

If, for example, the death rate were observed only to rise over time and particularly at the end, then this suggests only chronic toxicity is a factor.

But if there is also a distinct peak at the beginning, then this could support my hypothesis of respiratory distress, caused by a sudden increase in the amount of chemical.

Now if you can provide any report that includes this information, that would be truly useful.